CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Information and Cyber SecurityCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Cyberattacks, Cyber Threats, and Attitudes Toward Cybersecurity Policies

Open access
Snider, Keren L G, Shandler, Ryan, Zandani, Shay, Canetti, Daphna·2021·Journal of Cybersecurity
DOI 10.1093/cybsec/tyab019
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Does exposure to cyberattacks influence public support for intrusive cybersecurity policies? How do perceptions of cyber threats mediate this relationship? While past research has demonstrated how exposure to cyberattacks affects political attitudes, the mediating role played by threat perception has been overlooked. This study employs a controlled randomized survey experiment design to test the effect of exposure to lethal and nonlethal cyberattacks on support for different types of cybersecurity policies. One thousand twenty-two Israeli participants are exposed to scripted and simulated television reports of lethal or nonlethal cyberattacks against national infrastructure. Findings suggest that exposure to cyberattacks leads to greater support for stringent cybersecurity regulations, through a mechanism of threat perception. Results also indicate that different types of exposure relate to heightened support for different types of regulatory policies. People exposed to lethal cyberattacks tend to support cybersecurity policies that compel the government to alert citizens about cyberattacks. People who were exposed to nonlethal attacks, on the other hand, tend to support oversight policies at higher levels. More broadly, our research suggests that peoples’ willingness to accept government cybersecurity policies that limit personal civil liberties and privacy depends on the type of cyberattacks to which they were exposed and the perceptions associated with such exposure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cybsec/tyab019

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The decision whether to label a cyberattack as cyberterrorism has significant implications: applying a terrorism label activates far-reaching counter-terrorism powers and amplifies public fear and anger.

    “The decision about whether to label a cyberattack as cyberterrorism bears significant implications, with the application of a terrorism label activating far-reaching counter-terrorism powers, and amplifying public fear and anger (Canetti-Nisim et al. 2009; Zeitzoff 2014; Snider et al. 2021).”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Snider et al. 2021

    The ‘Exposure to Cyberattacks and Policy Attitudes’ section reports that exposure to cyberattacks can produce negative emotions and support for hardline policies. But the paper says it deliberately did not label its experimental attacks as cyberterrorism; it does not establish that applying that label amplifies fear and anger or activates counter-terrorism powers. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Perceiving an attack as terrorism rather than crime leads to distinct levels of anxiety and fear, which in turn shifts political attitudes such as militaristic tendencies and willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for security.

    “For instance, perceiving an attack as terrorism rather than crime leads to distinct levels of anxiety and fear (Shechory-Bitton and Cohen-Louck 2018), which in turn shifts political attitudes such as militaristic tendencies, and willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for security (Snider et al. 2021).”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Snider et al. 2021

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that exposure to cyberattacks increased willingness to forfeit civil liberties and privacy for security, and that threat perception mediated support for some cybersecurity policies. It does not establish a shift toward militaristic tendencies. The terrorism-versus-crime comparison and differences in anxiety and fear are attributed to a different citation in the citing sentence, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. For big banks, it's an endless fight with hackers The Business Times , 30 July 2019. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/for-big -banks-it%E2%80%99s-an-endless-fight-with-hackers 13. Nye JS, Jr. Cyber Power. Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 2010.
  2. Gross ML, Canetti D, Vashdi DR. Cyberterrorism: its effects on psycho- logical well-being, public confidence and political attitudes. J Cybersecur 2017;3:49-58.
  3. Canetti D, Gross ML, Waismel-Manor I. Immune from cyber-fire? The psychological & physiological effects of cyberwar. In: Allhoff F, Henschke A, Strawser BJ (eds). Binary Bullets: The Ethics of Cyberwarfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, 157-76.
  4. Clark DD, Landau S. Untangling attribution. Harvard National Secur J 2011;2:323-52.
  5. Graves J, Acquisti A, Anderson R. Experimental measurement of attitudes regarding cybercrime. In: 13th Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security 2014; Pennsylvania State University.
  6. Hefetz A, Liberman G. The factor analysis procedure for exploration: a short guide with examples. Cult Educ 2017;29:526-62.
  7. Brandon SE, Silke AP. Near-and long-term psychological effects of ex- posure to terrorist attacks. In: Bongar B, Brown LM, Beutler LE . et al. (eds). Psychology of Terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007, 175-93.
  8. Belk RW. Extended self in a digital world. J Consum Res 2013;40:477- 500.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Snider, K. L. G., Shandler, R., Zandani, S., & Canetti, D.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Snider, Keren L G
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cybersecurity
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-01-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2057-2085 (ISSN-L)
  • 2057-2093
DOI
10.1093/cybsec/tyab019
OpenAlex
W3202087751
Cited by
70
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Cybersecurity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
cyberattacks, cyber threats, threat perception, cybersecurity policy, public support for regulation, national infrastructure, civil liberties, privacy, political attitudes, media exposure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review